In the 1966 case of Schmerber v. California, the Supreme Court of the United States held that police may draw blood from suspects without first obtaining a search warrant.

Factual Background of the Case

This case began when Armando Schmerber got into a car accident. Schmerber was injured in the accident and as a result was sent to the hospital.

While he was there, a police officer noticed that Schmerber’s breath smelled of alcohol. Accordingly, he advised Schmerber that he was under arrest, and read him his Miranda rights.

The officer demanded that a blood sample be drawn from Schmerber. Schmerber objected. His attorney told him that he should give a blood sample, but he maintained his objection.

Nonetheless, the hospital staff took the sample. It was analyzed, and revealed that Schmerber had been intoxicated at the time of the accident.

Procedural Background

Schmerber was indicted for driving while intoxicated. Prior to his trial, he motioned the court to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the blood analysis. His theory was that the drawing of blood over his objection constituted a violation of his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process, his right against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment, his right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment, and his right not to be subject to unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment.

The trial court rejected his arguments and allowed the introduction of the evidence. Schmerber was convicted. When the case was appealed to the Appellate Department of the California Superior Court, the trial court’s decision was affirmed.

The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court agreed to hear the case.

Existing Law

At issue in this case was the interpretation of several of the Amendments to the United States Constitution.

First was the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment, as relevant here, provides that all citizens are entitled to due process of law.

Next was the Fifth Amendment which provides that a criminal defendant is not required to testify against himself if he chooses not to.

This case also dealt with the Sixth Amendment, which provides that criminal defendants are entitled to the assistance of counsel.

Finally, the case dealt with the Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement.

Court’s Analysis

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

The Court quickly  dismissed the Fourteenth Amendment claim by relying on a previous case in which blood was drawn from a driver while he was unconscious. The Court in that case had held that there was no due process violation. Since Schmerber was conscious at the time of the blood draw, the Court reasoned that he had more of an ability to object than the man in the previous case. Accordingly, it did not make sense to find a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

FIFTH AMENDMENT

The Court felt that there was no compulsory  testimony by Schmerber, because the blood was not a medium of communication. He was never forced to speak or say anything. Accordingly, the Fifth Amendment, in the Court’s eyes, was not violated.

SIXTH AMENDMENT

The Court pointed out that Schmerber had an attorney present at the time of the blood draw. Accordingly, there could not have been a violation of the right to have counsel present.

FOURTH AMENDMENT CLAIM

In response to the assertion that the blood draw was a Fourth Amendment violation, the Court believed that an officer could reasonably fear destruction of the evidence he sought if he wasted time getting a warrant. In other words, if the officer obtained a warrant to take a blood sample, the alcohol might work its way out of a suspect’s system.

Conclusion

Once the Court rejected all of Schmerber’s constitutional claims, it affirmed the lower court decisions in favor of the state and left the conviction in effect.

In a shocking display of excessive force, Transit Police Officer, Andy B. Vihn became enraged and assaulted 21 year-old Catholic University student, Karissa Ronkin.

On September 16, 2010, Ronkin was hanging out with friends in the Gallery Place Chinatown Metro entrance. Vihn blocked Ronkin and her friends from entering the Metro, saying such things as, “this is my station.”

When Ronkin dismissively replied, “yeah, it’s your f___ing station,” Vihn became enraged. Although Ronkin was turning to leave, he followed after her and tackled her to the ground by grabbing her neck and pulling.

The entire incident was recorded by a cell phone camera and has since been posted online. The footage has generated significant criticism of the officer’s actions.

In the video, Vihn is seen on top of Ronkin repeatedly demanding that she stop resisting. Ronkin, however, does not appear to resist at all, and replies, “I’m not resisting. I don’t understand.” Indeed the only movement she seems to make, is an attempt to pull down her dress, which was thrown up by Vihn’s assault, exposing her leg and buttocks.

Ronkin asserts that throughout the three minute event, Vihn pressed an erection against her.

Citizens that witnessed the event were appalled by Vihn’s actions and couldn’t understand why he attacked her in the first place.

In response, Ronkin has filed suit against Vihn, asserting a violation of her First and Fourth Amendment rights. Her attorneys have taken the position that a citizen has the right to criticize a police officer without being physically assaulted and publicly embarrassed.

In the 1974 case of United States v. Nixon, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the president of the United States cannot hide behind executive privilege in order to cover up his own crimes.

Factual Background of the Case

In June of 1972, President Richard Nixon was running for reelection against Senator George McGovern. Nixon prevailed in the campaign.

Prior to his being reelected, and during the campaign, there was a burglary at the Democratic National Headquarters in the Watergate building in Washington D.C. Investigators discovered connections between the burglary and President Nixon’s campaign for reelection.

The event became a press-frenzy. Members of the media continually discovered evidence that appeared to incriminate the president and high-level executive officials. The president and his administration angrily denied that they had done anything wrong.

Chaired by Senator Sam Ervin from North Carolina, the Senate Select Committee on Watergate began its own investigations. During the course of the hearings, a presidential aide, Alexander Butterfield, said that there was a covert recording system in the Oval Office that recorded conversations with the president.

Archibald Cox was designated as as a special prosecutor to pursue the matter. As part of his case, he issued a subpoena requesting the Oval Office recordings. President Nixon vehemently fought the release of those tapes.

Eventually, Nixon agreed to release transcripts of the tapes. Cox found this unacceptable and continued demanding the actual recordings. In his frustration, Nixon ordered the termination of Cox. Attorney General Elliot Richardson refused to fire Cox and resigned. Nixon then asked the next in line, William Ruckelshaus to fire Cox. Ruckelshaus also refused to do so and resigned. Finally Nixon went to the third in command at the Justice Department, Solicitor General, Robert Bork. Bork fired Cox. This event has become known as the “Saturday Night Massacre.”

The public was outraged over the event and demanded the appointment of a new special prosecutor. Nixon gave in and appointed Leon Jaworski.

Procedural Background of the Case

Jaworski took the case to a grand jury. The grand jury indicted 7 high officials of Nixon’s administration for obstruction of justice and conspiracy to defraud. The grand jury said that it would have also indicted Nixon, but was uncertain whether or not it could.

Jaworski filed a subpoena for the recordings. The president disclosed edited transcripts of the recordings and filed a motion to quash the subpoena.

The trial court denied the president’s motion and ordered him to disclose the recordings. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court agreed to hear the case.

Existing Law

This case revolved around a question of executive privilege. Previous case law had established that the certain government officials, including the president, had a privilege that would allow them to defend against subpoenas and other judicial and legislative processes in order to allow them to better function. This was considered necessary to protect national security.

One of the unique questions at issue in this case, was whether or not this privilege allowed the president to protect evidence of his own possible wrongdoing when no particular national security issue was at stake.

Court’s Analysis

The court felt that in situations where the president does not have a specific reason for invoking privilege, he cannot use it to stop a legitimate criminal investigation. Because the president was not here invoking the privilege for any articulated reason, he was required to disclose the tapes.

Conclusion

President Nixon finally disclosed the recordings. They contained incriminating evidence against him and his aides, indicating that he had been involved in the Watergate scandal. Shortly thereafter, he resigned from office. He gave a televised speech from the Oval Office, asking the country to support the new president.

In a recent report, the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) warned consumers of an investment scam used to defraud both the government and United States citizens.

The scheme involves obtaining names and social security numbers of victims. The information is then used to file fraudulent tax returns. The returns are structured to provide large refunds that are deposited into criminals’ accounts.

Victims’ information is acquired in a number of ways. One common ploy involves setting up a store-front and promoting tax preparation services. When victims come in to have taxes prepared, criminals are able to take their personal information and be gone before the victims realize what’s happening.

Another tactic involves finding victims that own stock in companies that are performing poorly. The IC3 is uncertain how this initial information is uncovered. Victims are contacted and convinced to sell the stock for better than fair prices. As part of the transaction, the purported buyers request personal information so that tax information on the sale can be reported to the IRS. As soon as the information is transmitted, communication stops. Some victims of this scheme were convinced to purchase additional shares of another stock. When the victims wire funds for the new purchase, the scammers run off.

IC3 warns that investment frauds are generally much higher in loss amounts than are other types of fraud. You should always be very careful when giving out your personal information to any person or business entity.

As part of its ongoing battle with drug-violence, Mexico is near to passing a new law designed to help victims.

Mexico’s war over drugs has resulted in the death of approximately 50,000 people in the last 5 years and the disappearance of thousands more. Authorities have, on occasion, discovered mass-graves of people that were killed in gang violence. Sometimes the bodies were cut into small pieces and sometimes they were dissolved in acid. Others were simply discovered long after they began to decay. Each of these conditions makes it difficult to identify victims when they are discovered.

The new law will require that the Mexican government to establish a national registry. That registry will be used to track persons that have disappeared or been kidnapped. It will also track persons that have been killed or wounded by drug cartels.

Once identified, the government is required to set aside money to compensate these victims. Some of the funding will derive from monies seized from the cartels themselves. Victims or their families may be entitled to receive as much as 1 million pesos in damages (or the equivalent of approximately $76,000 in United States currency).

The bill has been approved by both houses of Mexico’s congress and awaits only a signature from the president. Because of his stance on the drug war, it is almost certain that he will sign the bill.

Federal prosecutors charged 107 people across the country with Medicare fraud.

The group of defendants is comprised off doctors, nurses, social workers, and other medical personnel. According to the allegations, they were each involved in making Medicare claims for injuries that did not exist. The result was approximately $452 million in fraudulent claims. It is reported to be the largest total ever targeted by a single raid by a federal strike force.

In a federal crackdown, police arrested people in 7 different cities. Of the 107 defendants, 87 were arrested. Others were either still being sought or were asked to surrender.

Examples of allegations include the owner of a health care equipment distributor that has been charged with receiving income from Medicare for power wheelchairs that were never actually distributed. Another person was accused of billing for feeding tubes that patients didn’t need.

The charges come in the wake of a surge in federal efforts to crack down on fraud. The Obama administration has developed software to help identify fraudulent patterns in medical billing. Once suspects are identified, investigators then follow up. In 2007, the administration developed the “Medical Fraud Strike Force,” to arrest suspects.

During 2011, 1,430 people were charged with health care fraud. Although it’s presently unclear how much money is spent on fraudulent Medicare and Medicaid claims, total spending for the programs is expected to reach $1 trillion this year.

In the 2002 case of Ring v. Arizona, the Supreme Court of the United States held that a criminal defendant is entitled to a jury for purposes of establishing factual evidence used in a sentencing hearing if that factual decision would alter the possible sentence a defendant could get without the factual finding.

Factual Background of the Case

This case began with Dave Moss and John Magoch. In 1994, the two worked for Wells Fargo driving an armored truck. While on their daily route, they stopped at a mall in Glendale, Arizona. Moss hopped out of the truck and proceeded into the mall to pick up a shipment from a Dillard’s store.

While Moss was inside, Magoch, who was required to wait in the truck until his partner returned, opened the driver-side door so that he could smoke a cigarette and let the fumes escape.

Moss completed his transaction inside the mall, but when he returned, the armored truck was gone. Police were notified and later that day, Maricopa County Sheriff’s Deputies discovered the truck in the parking lot of a church in Sun City, Arizona.

The truck’s engine was still running and the doors were all locked. Magoch was inside. He had been shot in the head and killed. An inventory of the vehicle revealed that over $562,000 in cash was missing.

Detectives from the Glendale police department received a tip from an informant that Timothy Ring and James Greenham had been involved in the crime. Investigators learned that they had made several large cash purchases.

Officers obtained warrants to place a wire tap on the phones of Ring, Greenham, and a third suspect, William Ferguson. In one conversation, Ring told Ferguson that he thought Greenham was too much of a risk because he had shown off a new truck to his wife.

Detectives worked with a local news agency to provide an article about the robbery. The broadcast was intentionally designed with inaccuracies. Shortly thereafter, Ring called Greenham and left a message saying, “remind me to talk to you tomorrow and tell you about what was on the news tonight. Very important, and also fairly good.”

In yet another conversation, Ring said to Ferguson that Greenham’s house was “clean” but that Ring’s house, contained “a very large bag.”

When police staged another false news report, Ring said to Ferguson that he laughed when he saw the broadcast.

After hearing all this, detectives obtained and executed a search warrant. Ring’s house contained a bag with over $271,000 in cash and a note indicating how the three men would split the money.

Ring claimed that he had earned the money by working as a bail bondsman, gunsmith, and as an informant for the FBI. The state later obtained evidence that Ring made approximately $8,800 as a bail bondsman, and that he had received only $458 from the FBI.

According to testimony presented by Greenham, the three waited at the mall. When Magoch opened the armored truck door to smoke his cigarette, Ring used a rifle with a homemade silencer and shot Magoch in the head. Greenham then jumped in the truck and drove off.

Procedural Background

Ring and his co-conspirators were indicted. Greenham pled guilty and agreed to 27.5 years in prison. As part of the plea agreement, Greenham agreed to testify against Ring and Ferguson.

Ring’s case went to trial and he was convicted of felony murder. Greenham did not testify during the trial, but testified later during Ring’s sentencing hearing. Without Greenham’s testimony, the jury was uncertain whether Ring had actually committed the murder or was just involved in the crime when the driver was killed. For that reason, he was convicted of felony murder and not premeditated murder.

Under Arizona law, a person convicted of felony murder could be sentenced to the death penalty, only if a judge found that there were aggravating factors justifying the sentence. The trial judge found that there were aggravating factors and relied on the testimony of Greenham regarding Ring’s actually having murdered the guard.

Ring appealed, arguing that the ruling was a violation of the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution because it allows a judge and not a jury to resolve a question of fact for purposes of sentencing.

The Arizona Supreme Court agreed affirmed the ruling in favor of the state.

The case was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States and the Court agreed to hear the case.

Existing Law

At issue in this case was an interpretation of the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Sixth Amendment holds that in criminal prosecutions, the defendant is entitled to a trial by jury.

The unique question in this case was whether or not a defendant is entitled to have a jury decide questions of fact for purposes of sentencing when the death penalty is being imposed.

Court’s Analysis

The Court noted that without a finding that that Ring had indeed committed the murder, it would not have been possible to sentence him to death under Arizona law.

Effectively, then, the Court believed that this was much like giving Ring a greater charge than what he had been convicted of. For that reason, the Court stated that defendants are entitled to have a jury decide questions of fact for purposes of sentencing.

Conclusion

The Court reversed the trial court’s finding and remanded the case for a new sentencing hearing.

In the 2007 case of Scott v. Harris, the Supreme Court of the United States held that it is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution for police to ram a vehicle driven by someone that is driving recklessly.

Factual Background of the Case

The case began when a police officer in Georgia used a radar on Victor Harris’s vehicle while he was driving at 73 miles per hour. The officer turned on his lights and began pursuing Harris.

Additional police were called in, including Deputy Timothy Scott. The police followed Harris in to a shopping center parking lot and attempted to box him in. Harris turned sharply and crashed into Scott’s police car, then drove out of the parking lot and continued on to a highway.

Scott and other officers continued the pursuit. A short time later, Scott radioed for and received approval to conduct a “Precision Intervention Technique” (PIT). The PIT maneuver is designed to causes a vehicle to spin out and stop.

Scott’s supervisor radioed back and said to, “go ahead and take him out.”

Scott rammed his push bumper into Harris’s car. Harris lost control, flew off the road, flipped over and crashed. Harris was severely injured and became a quadriplegic because of the accident.

Procedural History

Harris filed suit against against Scott personally, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 allows a person whose civil rights have been violated by someone asserting governmental authority to sue and receive compensation for injuries. Scott claimed that his Fourth Amendment rights had been violated during the car chase.

Scott made the claim that he was acting within the scope of his job as a police officer and therefore should have immunity from the suit. The trial court disagreed.

On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court, stating that Scott’s actions could be considered deadly force and therefore, under the circumstances, would have been excessive and therefore violative of the Fourth Amendment.

The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court agreed to hear the case.

Existing Law

This case revolved around the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Fourth Amendment holds that police may not engage in unreasonable warrantless seizures of someone’s person. In other words, law enforcement can’t detain you without some justification or a warrant.

The question in this case was whether a police officer violated the Fourth Amendment by ramming a vehicle in the middle of a high-speed chase.

Court’s Analysis

After watching a video of the chase, the Court felt that Harris was driving dangerously fast and was swerving around other cars. In the Court’s eyes, he therefore posed a threat to others.

Scott’s actions were therefore reasonable in light of the circumstances because he was attempting to stop Harris’s vehicle from preventing harm to others.

The Court continued that there was no indication that Harris would have stopped had officers ceased their pursuit. Thus it made sense for police to take some measure to stop Harris.

Finally, the Court expressed concern that if it laid down a rule establishing that police could not follow a person that was driving recklessly and putting others in danger, it would simply incentivize criminals to drive recklessly. The Court described this potential outcome as “perverse” and therefore inappropriate.

Conclusion

Because the Court felt that the Fourth Amendment had not been violated, it ruled that there was no underlying violation of Harris’s civil rights. Accordingly, the trial and Circuit Court’s rulings were reversed and the case was dismissed.

A federal jury in Virginia just convicted Minor Vargas Calvo for a massive insurance fraud scheme.

Calvo was the president of Provident Capital Indemnity Ltd. The company sold bonds on behalf of life settlement companies. A life settlement company purchases insurance policies for less than they are worth and cashes in on the full value when the seller passes away.

The federal government alleged that Calvo had sold $485 million in bonds using financial statements with false numbers and by making false statements to investors.

Calvo was indicted for conspiracy, mail fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering. His trial lasted 5 days. The jury was in deliberation for only 3 hours before returning a guilty verdict.

The prosecutor, Neil MacBride, said in a public statement, “Mr. Vargas may have thought that he was safe operating his scheme from overseas, but his conviction is yet another example to global fraudsters: You can run but you can’t hide.”

Calvo’s defense counsel, Jeffrey Everhart, said that an accountant had falsified financial statements and Calvo was caught in the scam. Everhart said, “Mr. Vargas inherited a mess and did the best he could to try to make it right.”

Everhart indicated that he and his client are uncertain whether or not they will appeal the case.

A video produced in Ecuador, entitled “Chevron’s Amazon Chernobyl,” depicts a number of environmental crimes conducted by Chevron.

After Ecuadorians successfully obtained an $18 billion law suit against Chevron, they produced a video on the alleged atrocities committed by the oil giant.

According to the video, between 1964 and 1990 Chevron dumped 16-18 billion gallons of pollutants into Ecuadorian rivers and streams. Chevron was aware that those waterways were used as sources of drinking water. The dumped chemicals included benzene and other poisonous substances.

Chevron also dumped oil and toxic drilling by-products into unlined pits in the jungle. When the chemicals began to seep into the ground it killed areas of the jungle, and poisoned food sources.

The video also demonstrates how Chevron tampered with evidence and took efforts to bribe a judge during the trial.

Aside from destroying the environment, many Ecuadorians were killed as a result of Chevron’s massive pollution. At one point  in the video, Chevron is accused of having told Ecuadorians that the oil they were dumping was full of vitamins and minerals and was good for you. It then depicts a little girl using a stick to twirl an oily glob.

Karen Hinton, a spokesperson for the Ecuadorians, said, “this powerful film needs to be seen so the world can fully understand the depths of Chevron’s depravity when it comes to environmental protection.”